The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-03-16
Supreme Court,

Hon. Byron x. Elliott, Chief justice.
The following opinions were rendered March
Is:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CREDITOR.
1924. Hiram Seibert vs. Harry J. Milligan,
assignee. Marion c. c. Affirmed. Mitchell.
J.--When il appears from the deed that the pur-
pose Of the assienor in making the assignment
to avail himself of the benefit of the as
signment laws the right to all OF the assignors
property was thereby passed to the trustee for
the purposes OF the trust whether all OF snch
property was specifically described or not. The
omission from the deed of some of the assignors
property, or the fact that part of it had been
conveyed or transferred in fraud of the rights
of creditors, did not render the assignment in
valid. Under Section 1876 the assignee may be
authorized or directed by the court to bring and
maintain all necessary suits to set aside fraudu-
lent conveyances or transfers made by the
assienor ~ Where a deed of assignment did
not specifically describe property which had
heretofore been fraudulenty transferred. a
creditor of the assignor who obtained judg
ment and execution after the assignment, but
before such property was actually conveyed to
the assignee, will hold no lien on such property
as against the assignee.
oN-NoTICE-PRAcTIcE.
1ls49 Barak B. Orton ct al VS.. John F. Tilden
ct al. Laporte c. G. Affirmed. Howk, j.
Petition to have a highway ascertained, sur
veyed and entered Of record as provided by Sec
$685. Q) Appellees plaintiffs below claim
and that no question on the petition can be con-
sidered. If it was important to appellees that
an amended petition should be in the record
they should have applied for certorari. But
the record IS certified to be full true and COM
plete transcript of all the proceedings, etc. and
the presumption is that the petition in the record
is the only one in the cause. Ga 1t would
seem that in the enactment of the amended sec
| and intended to provide that the board
| of County Commissioners, such of the
county roads used as highways, should
have been laid out but not sufficiently described.
| and such as had been used for twenty years but
| not recorded ito be ascertained, described and
| entered of record, without the petition therefor
| containing the names Of the owners and occu-
| pants or agents of the lands through which such
| roads had been so used as highways. required to
be set forth in petition for the location, change
| or vacation of a highway, as provided in Section
| 500L (3.) The judgment will not be reversed.
| because the petition does not contain such
names, when it is manifest such parties, SO far
| as shown by the record, without obJecting to the
notice. voluntarily appeared to such petition.
| a. When the date of presentation of bill Of
exceptions is not stated in the BILL the date Of the
signature will be considered as the date of pre-
| sentation and il that shows that it was present
ed after the expiration of the time allowed, it ii
| not in the record
| NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. RUNKARD.
| 1912 James eGeraghty VS.. State. Rush
| G. G. Reversed. Niblack, J.-Indictmen
under Sec. 2093 for selling liquor to an habitua
| drunkard. The indictment did not charge tina
| Hannah Wilson notified the appellant that hel
husband was in the habit of being intoxicated OF
| that her said husband resided in Noble township
| when she notified the appellant not to sell tt
| him. The allegation that John Wilson resided
| in the township named at the time the indict
ment was returned is not equivalent of an aver
ment of that township when the alleged motto,
| was given The indictment was not sufficien
under the statue
| NEW NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
1882 Monroe Blackburn vs. Robert Fl
| Crowder ct al. Green G. G. Affirmed. Elliott, G
J.-Where evidence proves distinct and ma
rerial fact, new trial cannot be denied because
the evidence may have the additional effect o
| impeaching the testimony of the party agains
| whom it is offered. a. The question whethe
| diligence had been shown in a case where a new
trial was granted upon a complaint filed after
the term, is to be determined from the allega
tions in the body of the complaint. and not from
the exhibits. 49, For a complaint showing
facts sufficient to constitute diligence, Sc
opinion.
1892. John Ellenborger VS.. Henry ]. Null
gan assignee. Marion G. c. Affirmed. Mitchell
Affirmed on the authority of Seibert VS.. Null
| ligan above.
S94s Rosanna Sims VS.. Alfred Gay ct al
Marion S. G.. Rehearing denied.
1880. Margaret Vanyatter ct al. vs. Eliza
beth Richardson. Grant c. G. Motion to dis
miss appeal oyerruied.